Rockville zoning rewrite draws sustained public comment and council work‑session direction

A two‑hour public hearing and subsequent work session on Rockville’s zoning ordinance rewrite and comprehensive map amendment dominated the council’s April 13 meeting, with staff outlining a multi‑month adoption timeline and residents delivering detailed testimony on proposed rezoning in several planning areas.

Holly Simmons, deputy zoning manager, summarized the rewrite process and said staff expects to publish a revised staff draft on April 20 and proceed through additional hearings and work sessions before an anticipated adoption in July. She told the council the adoption timeline began with staff drafts filed in December and that the planning commission completed its recommendations on February 25.

Public testimony focused heavily on Planning Area 12 (a roughly 9.75‑acre parcel north of Tower Oaks and adjacent to Newmark Commons). Residents from Newmark Commons and Markwood urged the council to reject rezoning the parcel to RMD‑25 (residential medium density, 25 units/acre), warning a rezoning could create cut‑through traffic into neighbor streets, increase noise and pollution, and threaten a mature tree canopy. One speaker raised historical concerns, saying the parcel contains unmarked graves tied to a 19th‑century county poor farm; several neighbors asked the council to preserve buffer areas and limit vehicular access onto Don Mills Court.

Developer representatives and the Tower Oaks owner said no immediate development plan existed but proposed footnotes or access restrictions (for example, limiting access from a cul‑de‑sac to emergency ingress/egress only) to address neighbors’ concerns while preserving future development options. The planning commission recommended an access‑dependent density footnote that would cap density at 10 units/acre if primary access were provided from an existing secondary residential cul‑de‑sac; staff presented alternative zoning options (RMD‑15, RMD‑10 or a stepped form approach) to reach different goals on density, form and tree preservation.

Council members and staff used a work‑session format to take direction on many detailed text and map items. Highlights of council sentiment and staff recommendations included:

- Transitional provisions: council supported expanding eligibility for pending projects to proceed under prior rules for a limited period after adoption. - Compatibility findings: planning commission recommended a separate compatibility finding for certain site approvals; staff warned the standard could be subjective and redundant with existing findings. Council was split and requested clarification. - Front‑loaded townhouse and garage standards: the planning commission favored more flexible site‑design language to avoid eliminating a product type; council generally supported retaining flexibility. - Shooting ranges and public‑safety standards: staff proposed strict safety and ventilation measures; the commission recommended removing a proposed 200‑foot residential setback for legal risk reasons; staff concurred. - Deer fencing and signs: staff and the commission proposed new, narrower definitions and exceptions to allow mesh deer fencing (discussion focused on what heights would reasonably deter deer while minimizing visual impact). The council asked staff for an approach harmonized with Montgomery County standards. - Use‑based gross‑floor‑area restrictions: the planning commission recommended removing many size limits in mixed‑use zones; staff recommended retaining limits in residential zones and light‑industrial areas to preserve intent. Council asked staff to return options clarifying impacts on commercial recruitment.

Simmons told the council that a revised staff draft would be published on April 20, followed by additional work sessions and public hearings (a second public hearing was proposed in mid‑May) and a final staff draft planned for late May ahead of adoption in July. Staff asked council for direction on which planning‑commission recommendations to adopt in the revised draft; councilors gave preliminary votes and asked staff to circulate marked‑up language so the public can compare drafts.

The hearing kept the public record open for written testimony and directed staff to bring back revised text that incorporated council guidance and clarified areas where state law or existing code would control outcomes.

Quote: "If vehicle access were granted through our communities, we would become an alternate route for traffic ... This would offer drivers an alternative north‑south commuter cut‑through between Montrose Road and Falls Road," said Julia Binder, representing Newmark Commons residents.